It was just an example how you could detach the secret and the device made by Apple. I'm sure there are better ideas for that. The way this is configured now Apple can decrypt any phone, which voids the argument made in the OP. But I can understand why this will be the unpopular opinion here.
> Apple doesn't use scrypt. Their approach is to add a 256-bit device-unique secret key called a UID to the mix, and to store that key in hardware where it's hard to extract from the phone. Apple claims that it does not record these keys nor can it access them.
Technically, this is where it breaks down. As in "Trust me I don't store the keys."
If that hypothesis is true(they don't store these keys), then they'll have a hard time breaking your encryption indeed. But you must trust Apple at that point.
If there was a way to buy an anonymously replaceable chip with this cryptographic key in it and replace it on the phone like a SIM, then we'd be much closer to stating "Apple can't decrypt your phone".
I did that years ago as well. Soon as I read somewhere that Stallman meant Emacs to be his only shell and do everything in it(?), this was my first thought.
> Maybe all the time I spend looking for better ways to do things is keeping me from, well, doing things.
Eureka!
People are complicating their lives just to decomplicate later. It's a vicious cycle designed to keep the market flowing. Needs are created in real time, we don't even know why we need certain things any more. We live under the anxiety created by the excess of excess.
With 99% of the so called "life hacks", we're just trying to eliminate a problem that we created by another "life hack". Oh a nice trick to keep the iPhone doing X? Cool! Why did I need X in the first place again??? I don't remember. And the iPhone...why did I buy it? I just play a silly game and use the contacts list most of the time.
There is a:
99% chance you don't need your email available 24x7
99% chance you don't need a new car
99% chance you don't need a cell phone turned on 24x7
99% chance that 99% of the shit ton of information you gather daily will be thrown out of your brain in just a few weeks
99% chance you don't need a stupid GPS guiding what you do, where you drive
99.99% chance you don't really need a new iPad, iThis, iThat, HTC that, whatever
99% chance you don't need the extra U$ 1000 on your sallary
99% chance you didn't need to be tweeting or checking your email while there was a nice person sitting next to you while you waited at the airport
99% chance you don't need to be all you can be better richer faster more
This is why the world is turning into a bunch of control freaky, unhappy, lonely, greedy and unhealthy bunch of individuals.
I discovered this one day. I said fuck it and went for a walk at the park. Since then, I've done the same thing daily and I don't miss the other 1567 things I used to do on the Internet instead of having a silly walk at the park.
And this is in Scotland. Can you imagine what it is like in the poorest countries in the world? This is why we need a permanent, open Internet on all nations, because as soon as the truth comes out, someone does something about it.
This was absolutely expected. The Nasdaq delays probably had about zero impact on the IPO results but you know how it goes...someone lost money on Facebook paper and they're bound to make it back speculating on the courts...
> But how about if Google collects its OWN information about me. Does that fall under habeas data?
Anyone whom you suspect has data on you can be subpoenaed to give you, and only you, the data they have about you. The government included, even spy agencies - you have the right to request your personal information from any other person, corporation or governmental agency.
> Do you own the data or does the company you post the data on own the data? This is a decision that needs to be made
This decision was made long ago. The remedy is called habeas data and YOU own your personal data and nobody else. Whether other parties(like an employer) can USE your data, is a matter of contract and agreement. But who owns it is already decided.
> The problem here is that the whole security model is upside down.
I had to scroll two screens down to find your comment.
At some point Google and Facebook(and everyone else, these two are just the most popular right now) inverted the rules. Years ago it was completely unacceptable for any piece of software to mine any piece of data without your consent. Screens had to be shown explicitly "do you authorize we contact server X in order to send data Y?"
Fast forward a few years and these companies are out there providing Javascript libraries that are essentially urchins on every web page. Every web site which uses Google gadgets for example, like maps or adsense or whatever is giving their visitor's client data to Google - screen resolution, IP address, web browser used, allows them to set tracking cookies, etc.... Same with Facebook javascript gadgets. Since when is this OK?
This would have been completely unacceptable a few years ago but somewhere it got lost. Now it's not only ok for Google and Facebook to track you everywhere, it also seems to be OK to FIGHT over having access to even more data!
The whole privacy thing has been turned upside down. These people are not fighting for our privacy, they are fighting over who gets to access MORE of our personal data.
> Even if Facebook collapses, it doesn't mean it will take the rest of the web down with it.
The WWW was here before Facebook. To even raise that possibility shows people completely lack a sense of proportion. Facebook and Google can disappear from the WWW and the WWW will stay there just like it was before these companies came along.
It was a wrong move for Google to have gone into the social media business IMO. It took focus from their search, which has arguably lost quality, and injected search with too many diversions and "noise".
The level of interest in Google+ reflects "the fallacy of Facebook" as well, it is the same effect: why would people continue to expose themselves like that?
Social media with a purpose, like LinkedIn and similar, are good for business contacts. Facebook and Google+ simply aren't a business environment.
The purpose of Facebook and Google+ is to mine data and sell ads. IMO that is a broken business model, because at some point privacy will inevitably become a barrier.